Why Is There No Legislation Introduced To Prevent Lockdowns or Shutdowns in the Future?

[Snouter]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Well since both parties are corrupt and one in the same only disguised as two parties,does that answer your question.lol misterbeal has a video of things we can do to get rid of the corrupt one party system we have,you should pm him for it. I would post it but I am posting on a tablet so I really can’t post videos.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The First Amendment already prohibits such shutowns.

Where government openly refuses to obey the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law, what makes you think that this same government would obey a lesser law which only restates what the Constitution already makes clear?

What we need to to criminally prosecute corrupt public servants who abuse the power of their office to violate the rights of the people.

 

[forkup]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

 

[forkup]

The First Amendment already prohibits such shutowns.

Where government openly refuses to obey the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law, what makes you think that this same government would obey a lesser law which only restates what the Constitution already makes clear?

What we need to to criminally prosecute corrupt public servants who abuse the power of their office to violate the rights of the people.

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

Irrelevant.

The Constitution says what it says, and is not dependent on a judge to uphold it, nor does any judge have the authority to override it. That we have foolishly allowed criminals holding public office, including judges, to usurp the power to violate the Constitution does not mean that there is, ever has been, or ever will be, any legitimacy to any such usurpations.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

 

[forkup]

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

Irrelevant.

The Constitution says what it says, and is not dependent on a judge to uphold it, nor does any judge have the authority to override it. That we have foolishly allowed criminals holding public office, including judges, to usurp the power to violate the Constitution does not mean that there is, ever has been, or ever will be, any legitimacy to any such usurpations.

Judges are the arbiters of the constitution. So it's very relevant. You seem to be claiming that your personal opinion about what the constitution means is more relevant than the opinion of those THE CONSTITUTION appointed to do so.

 

[forkup]

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

That's an opinion the constitution simply doesn't recognize as relevant. Only those tasked with the job namely judges can make that ruling.

 

[JWBooth]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

States/governments do not give back powers once they’ve seized them.

 

[fncceo]

Governments around the world have made the choice to destroy their economies in the name of public health.

I'm curious to see where this might go.

 

[Snouter]

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional.

Fun fact, judges are appointed to insure legislation is Constitutional or not. Question, has any state passed legislation to "lockdown" businesses, close schools (not that it is a bad idea since most schools are Deep State) and force citizens to wear ridiculous mask that are harmful and to socially distance, which is a gay concept since standing 6 feet vs. 1 foot has no scientific difference in disease spread?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Judges are the arbiters of the constitution. So it's very relevant. You seem to be claiming that your personal opinion about what the constitution means is more relevant than the opinion of those THE CONSTITUTION appointed to do so.

Not my opinion. What the Constitution actually says, in clear, explicit, unambiguous language, as opposed to the twisted “interpretations” of the Constitution, by criminals infesting judgeships and other public offices, who have vested interests in perverting the Constitution away from its clear meaning in order to usurp and abuse power to which they never had any legitimate claim.

 

[Deleted member 73486]

Well, stay-at-home mandates are important tools in fighting a novel virus that no one has immunity to (and apparently even when you acquire the virus, you might still get it again).

 

[eagle1462010]

No NEW LAWS ARE NEEDED........The Constitution is all that is prescribed for the Virus.

Governors...........Mayors ............Politicians got a chance to show their True Colors when given a little more power................THEIR HEADS EXPLODED forcing the State to put in double doors to fit their heads through...........

Vote them out.........our take the prescription of the 2nd in the end..............NO NEW LAWS NEEDED.......just Tar and Feather the DICTATOR WANNA BEES.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Judges are the arbiters of the constitution.

That's an opinion the constitution simply doesn't recognize as relevant. Only those tasked with the job namely judges can make that ruling.

“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1820​

 

[forkup]

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional.

Fun fact, judges are appointed to insure legislation is Constitutional or not. Question, has any state passed legislation to "lockdown" businesses, close schools (not that it is a bad idea since most schools are Deep State) and force citizens to wear ridiculous mask that are harmful and to socially distance, which is a gay concept since standing 6 feet vs. 1 foot has no scientific difference in disease spread?

Why would it need too? The laws already on the books allow them to take measures to protect the population. Nothing requires them to specify. Judges have acknowledged this right regardless of party affiliation. I gave you an open-ended challenge. Find me a judge who supports your assertion that taking those measures are unconstitutional.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah! And the President should be leading the way on this from his bully pulpit!

Oh wait, he hasn't demanded that cities and states open.

And oh yeah, he even criticized the Governor of Georgia when he wanted to re-open.

Dang. The President must be a part of this Deep State Hitler commie fake news hoax.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why would it need too? The laws already on the books allow them to take measures to protect the population. Nothing requires them to specify. Judges have acknowledged this right regardless of party affiliation. I gave you an open-ended challenge. Find me a judge who supports your assertion that taking those measures are unconstitutional.

Here it is, in black and white, as clear as it can possibly be.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

That' the First Amendment. And here's Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies this prohibition to the states as well as the federal government.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

The Constitution makes it absolutely clear. The people have a right to peaceably assemble, and government at all levels is forbidden from violating this right. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.

No opinion from any judge is needed to establish this as fact, nor does any judge have the authority to overturn it. This is the highest law in this nation. It takes precedence over any legislative act, over any executive order,and over any opinion or ruling rendered by any court.

Anyone at any level of government who seeks to violate this is no better than the lowest criminal.

 

[eagle1462010]

Oh wait, he hasn't demanded that cities and states open.

He is and lately has been recommending it............A little late.......the so called experts said the curve had to be flattened.........Not to STOP THE VIRUS.....but keep the Medical community from being overwhelmed.................not to shut down forever.

Not all states are alike..........No Federal mandate was required from the get go.......as Governors like South Dakota said we aren't shutting down like New York.......and they were right to do so.

And oh yeah, he even criticized the Governor of Georgia when he wanted to re-open

And Trump is wrong about that.........Georgia was right to open the hell back up........I'm damned proud of Georgia for saying Fuck this shit.....we are opening before we lose all small businesses and the State goes Bankrupt..........

HELL YEAH GEORGIA.

Dang. The President must be a part of this Deep State Hitler commie fake news hoax.

News that no one believes anymore..........They did that to themselves and played politics with a pandemic........did FEAR MONGERING like ER rooms in New York.......showing pictures from Italy...........

They can no longer be trusted whatsoever.